Evaluation of direct and indirect risks

The goal of Step 4 is to evaluate the direct and indirect risks characterised in Step 2 and Step 3 and assess them according to a range of evaluation criteria, in relation to the direct and indirect risk metrics selected in Steps 2 and 3. Ultimately, in Step 4, decision makers choose which direct and indirect risks they want to manage and reduce.

Guidance protocol questions

The following are questions that can help decision-makers, stakeholders, and relevant parties in successfully walking through step 4 of the framework. Consider this set of questions as an initial guide for your investigation, recognizing that it is not an exhaustive list.

Risk evaluation criteria

Evaluate various risk metrics from Steps 2 and 3, and determine which risks should be acted upon and managed/minimized. Do this based on comparing the results of direct and indirect risk characterization with risk evaluation criteria. Some of the risk evaluation criteria are outlined in the questions below.

  • What are the policy/legislative requirements to manage these direct and indirect risks? 

For instance, if a disaster risk management agency has legal responsibility for managing flood protection infrastructure in a certain area, they might focus on upgrading the protection. Similarly, insurance agencies will focus on risks covered by their policies.

  • What is the cost-benefit ratio for risk reduction and management? 

Stakeholders operate under finite and limited resources, and their decision-making might be led by costs versus benefits.

Communication of risk analysis with stakeholders

  • What are the different ways to communicate the results of risk analysis as a part of risk evaluation? Examples include maps, matrices, indices, and curves

Selection of risks to focus on

  • Based on the evaluation criteria, what are the risks for which you will be considering risk management options in Step 5? 

For instance, focus on reducing risks to transport infrastructure or drought risk in a specific agricultural region.

As in the previous steps of the framework, we are referring to the fictitious multi-hazard event in the Danube Region to exemplify the process of navigating through this stage of the framework. This serves as a practical illustration of how to approach this step and how to address the guidance protocol questions mentioned earlier, using our hypothetical scenario as a guide.

CONCEPTUAL EXAMPLE

There was a drought in the Danube Region (e.g. the 2015 or 2022 drought) that left severe consequences across sectors. After several months, the region is hit by a severe flood (e.g. the 2006 flood) causing severe loss and damage.

Different risk evaluation criteria:

  • Availability of water for agricultural irrigation
  • dyke repair cost impact on risk owner’s annual income
  • amount of losses insured
  • event of a specific return period and associated loss
  • how long and how often a specific road infrastructure is damaged

Methods and tools
relevant to step 4

Multi-Risk Pathways

Multi-risk pathways are a means to support disaster risk reduction planners in designing dynamic, adaptive plans that connect immediate disaster risk reduction needs across multiple hazards and sectors in the short-term with more uncertain longer-term challenges.

Risk-Informed Decision-Making

Development of methods to support decision-makers and stakeholders navigate the challenges of uncertain, integrated, and risk-informed DRM. These methods help explore, prioritise and balance complex synergies and tradeoffs across sectors and hazards when managing both short- and long-term risks.

Multi-risk scenarios

We are working on software for generating multi-hazard and multi-risk scenarios including the development of event sets, risk quantification, and comprehensive user guidelines. 

Implementation in pilot regions

Veneto

The Veneto Region Pilot focuses on multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment for both baseline and future climate change scenarios, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. These applications support the development of disaster risk management pathways that enhance resilience across diverse socio-economic and environmental systems.

Scandinavia

The Scandinavian pilot seeks to increase awareness and deepen understanding of climate and nature-related risks from multiple hazards. It also aims to enhance knowledge of the cross-sectoral impacts of these events, with a particular focus on agriculture, forestry, and energy. This work supports the creation of forward-looking multi-risk pathways in Scandinavia.

North sea

The North Sea pilot develops a multi-hazard and multi-sector pathway to manage risks and promote sustainable development, focusing on energy, shipping and transport, and nature across the Greater North Sea Region.

Danube

The Danube Pilot seeks to understand how different natural hazards affect each other in the Danube Region, helping to improve disaster risk management plans for the area.

Canary Islands

The Canary Islands pilot aims at enhancing the understanding of multi-hazard risks in tourism island destinations by focusing on the interconnected impacts of hazards across key sectors, including tourism, water, energy, and agri-food.
Go to step 5